1. Key Project Drivers - FY10 Ruth Pordes, June 15th 2009

2. The top 10: Key Goals for FY10
Support for LHC user running, support for Tier-1, Tier-2s and focus on Tier-3s.
Support software, analyses, and data management for LIGO based on requests.
Easier and more usable incremental upgrades of software for “any” reason – security, faults, functionality.
Support for other OSG stakeholders requests and increased number of non-physics and campus beneficiaries in OSG.
Timely and appropriate security and operational response to problems, as well as records of expectations, including SLAs and Policy, across the board.
Next 5:
Continued improved technical and operational support for data storage use, access and policies.
Wider adoption of Pilot based workload management, progress in transparency between campus & wide area resources, policies for improved usability & efficiency.
Articulation and implementation of Security authorization, identification & policy.
Success of OSG Satellites for moving the infrastructure forward
Better understanding of role of (separately) MPI, Virtual Machines and Cloud resources and policies in the OSG environment.

3. Internal Items needing to be Addressed
Put things in your program of work that you think need doing without regard to the effort available. I would also prefer any holes you are worried about get included in the area plans rather than left to chance later.
Meet responsibilities as part of Management of an effective project – update WBS, make reports, attend Area Coordinator meetings etc as expected.
Area Metrics.
Documentation.
Integration of Training.
Communication and Publishing.
Planning for the Future of OSG.
Generic – OSG supported glidein-wms services. Needed for training.Hosted WMS. E.g. charmm.

4. Year4 Planning High-level Schedule
Work Item
Completion Date
Document Key Project Drivers & Strategies
June 15
Share Key Project Drivers with Area Coordinators
June 25
Draft of all Area Goals reviewed with Project Manager
July 15
Review Area Goals with OSG-ET and Peers at OSG Retreat
July 30
Year4 WBS, staff plan, budget plan
Aug 30
Draft SOWs ready for approval
Sept 30
Baseline Budget, WBS, Project Execution Plan
Oct 30
85% of SOWs ready for Institutional SRO sign-off
Dec 15

5. Additional Info

6. LIGO Application needs:
Full support of and Inspiral Analysis across the majority of OSG sites.
Support for data movement and placement on OSG sites for LIGO applications.
Evaluation of another LIGO science application on the OSG.
Middleware needs:
Support for native packaging and source distributions.
Strengthen connections to Condor and Pegasus in OSG support.
Integration of and support for LIGO security infrastructure.
Service needs:
Critical? Y
Security monitoring, incident response, notification and mitigation
Accounting -Integration of accounting with OSG accounting reports
Integration and system validation of new and updated middleware.
Ticket Handling
Effective Grid-wide job execution of and Inspiral Analysis
Reporting of trends in usage, reliability, job state, job monitoring

7. WLCG US ATLAS and US CMS will be taking data from October 2009.
We must be communicative, responsive and flexible to needs on the ground – Tier-2, Tier-3 and Tier-1.
WLCG will continue operations
We must continue to work closely with the US ATLAS and US CMS management to understand, react sensibly to and contribute to WLCG requirements and decisions.

8. US ATLAS and US CMS resource increase
From WLCG MOU.
(says updates to US CMS T2 numbers will be made after initial data taking.)
Summary of US ATLAS Tier2s
2009
2010
%Increase
CPU (kSI2K, HEP-SPEC06)
6, ,476
30,724
20%
Disk (Tbytes)
2,467
3,067
25%
Summary of US CMS Tier2s
CPU(kSI2K, HEP-SPEC06)
7, ,000
54,000
76%
2,520
3.990
58%
ATLAS BNL Tier-1
7, ,348
51,060
74%
5,822
11,637
100%
Tape (Tbytes)
3,277
6,286
92%
CMS FNAL Tier-1
5,100 – 20,400
44,400
117%
2,600
4,100
57%
7,100
11,000
55%

9. From review.. Continued Challenges:
Scientific productivity argument could be presented in a more compelling manner.
Can’t rely on interaction with VOs to effectively represent what’s happening in end user community.
Didn’t tell OSG’s excellent story in a cohesive way.
Accomplishments:
OSG is a very critical piece of the infrastructure for the LHC and potentially important for LIGO.
This initiative has significant potential value for other large-scale science endeavors.
Clear that model for incorporating new HW resources can be successful – i.e. enabled CDF resources for D0 re-processing.

10. Futures Planning – proposed & status
Phase 1 by June 30, 2009 – delayed by a few weeks
Gather and document requirements & expectations from major stakeholders for 2010 to 2015
Solicit guidance from OSG Council on key directions for future
Phase 2 by Aug 2009 Face-to-Face Council Mtg – 2-4 page plan overall – not Each
2-page plan for each OSG work area (or functional unit)
List/abstract of satellite proposals
Phase 3 by Dec 2009
Analysis => outline for proposal
Document Architecture
Identify particpating senior personnel (and institutions)
Phase 4 at March 2010 All Hands Meeting
Endorsement of proposal by stakeholders
OSG Future proposal to NSF/DOE by March 30, 2010

11. WLCG MOU Goals - OSG support for LHC Tier-2s continues
provision of managed disk storage providing permanent and/or temporary data storage for files and databases;
provision of access to the stored data by other centres of the WLCG
operation of an end-user analysis facility
provision of other services, e.g. simulation, according to agreed Experiment requirements;
ensure network bandwidth and services for data exchange with Tier1 Centres, as part of an overall plan agreed between the Experiments and the Tier1 Centres concerned.
All storage and computational services shall be “grid enabled” according to standards agreed between the LHC Experiments and the regional centres.
Service
Maximum delay in responding to operational problems
Average availability measured on an annual basis
Prime time
Other periods
End-user analysis facility
2 hours
72 hours
95%
Other services
12 hours

12. WLCG MOU - OSG provides a Grid Operations Center
Annexﾊ3.4. Grid Operations Services
This section lists services required for the operation and management of the grid for LHC computing. This section reflects the current (September 2005) state of experience with operating grids for high energy physics. It will be refined as experience is gained.
Grid Operations Centres – Responsible for maintaining configuration databases, operating the monitoring infrastructure, pro-active fault and performance monitoring, provision of accounting information, and other services that may be agreed. Each Grid Operations Centre shall be responsible for providing a defined sub-set of services, agreed by the WLCG Collaboration. Some of these services may be limited to a specific region or period (e.g. prime shift support in the country where the centre is located). Centres may share responsibility for operations as agreed from time to time by the WLCG Collaboration.
User Support for grid and computing service operations:
First level (end-user) helpdesks are assumed to be provided by LHC Experiments and/or national or regional centres, and are not covered by this MoU.
Grid Call Centres – Provide second level support for grid-related problems, including pro-active problem management. These centres would normally support only service staff from other centres and expert users. Each call centre shall be responsible for the support of a defined set of users and regional centres and shall provide coverage during specific hours.

13. WLCG Operations Centers in the US
Indiana University iGOC
Scope of the service
Open Science Grid Operations Centre
Period during which the centre operates as the primary monitoring centre
24  7  52
BNL, Fermilab
Scope of the service
US-ATLAS and US-CMS Virtual Organisation Support Centre respectively
Period during which the centre operates as the primary monitoring centre
24  7  52

14. US LHC Service Needs Critical Interface to WLCG? Y
Security monitoring, incident response, notification and mitigation
Collaboration with EGEE, WLCG
Accounting - CPU, Storage & Efficiencies
Yes
GOC BDII Information System with accurate information published by all OSG sites that support US CMS VO.
Reliability publish accurate information to WLCG BDII
US ATLAS specific accounting reports No
Reliability and Availability monitoring
Integration and system validation of new and updated middleware.
Test interoperation of new releases with EGEE N
User/VO monitoring and validation using the RSV infrastructure
Perhaps
Ticket Handling
Bi-directional:US LHC <-> OSG <-> GGUS, including alarms.
SRM V2.2 Storage at Tier-2s
Track WLCG deployments.
CE interface to meet experiment throughput needs
Reporting of trends in usage, reliability, job state, job monitoring.
Grid wide Information system accessible to ATLAS applications.
Troubleshooting and user support, especially support from centralized expert group for use of storage on OSG sites
CE interface to meet CMS throughput needs based on GlideinWMS workload management.
Reporting of trends in usage, reliability, job state, job monitoring. Site level dashboard of usage, job state, efficiencies and errors across US CMS OSG sites.

15. Run II Needs
Continued support for opportunistic use of OSG resources for simulation needs.
Maintain deployed middleware and services compatible with existing experiment software.
Continued support for Run II experiments analysis and production on OSG accessible resources
Throughput
DZero : 5 M events/week
CDF: 5 M events/week?

16. STAR
Support for xrootd on OSG sites.
Support for VMs and use of Commercial Clouds.